Just got home from school and was greeted by a preemptive "challenge" to anyone who might even be considering voting third party in 2004, the overall theme of which seems to be "they're not as bad as Bush".

I'll happily admit that. Not a single one of the Democratic contenders for the nomination would be as bad as Bush in the White House.

Then again, I suspect that Bob fucking Barr would be better, in at least some respects, than Bush.

This is not to say that any of the candidates is a Republican. Even given my questions about Clark and my distaste for Lieberman, I don't think any of them is a Republican. Still, where do you draw the line? Is "better than Bush" good enough? If it is, then why not go ahead and follow Eric Alterman's post-9/11 advice that the Dems nominate Rudy Giuliani? He'd probably be better than Bush!

I'd say not. Setting the bar that low perpetuates a lot of problems, even if it stops them from getting even worse. I have to believe that we can do better than that.

I've never said that "better than Bush" is good enough. I mean, Bush's father would be better than the current Resident. However, I do believe that any of one of our candidates is a good candidate -- not just better than Bush, but at least a pretty good one. And I think most of our candidates -- Clark, Dean, Kerry, Gephardt, Braun, Kucinich, and Edwards -- are excellent! So, I'm not voting for a "lesser of two evils." I'm voting for a candidate I truly believe in.

Having said that, I don't think that ANY candidate is ever 100% perfect. I think there's only one person in the nation who agrees with me 100% of the time: Me.

(from here on out "btB") is the rationale behind "ABB", or "anyone but Bush". I'm not here to rag on any particular candidate - we disagree on a couple of the candidates you name as "excellent", but whatever - but I want to talk about the mindset that would seem to accept any candidate not named George W. Bush. Candidate "perfection" is very much beside the point.

and what a firckin nightmare this Administration has been, then I would say that yes, and reasonably sane, competent individula would be better than bush. Even a moderate Republican. So to vote 3rd party and essentialy vote for four more years of Bush* would be cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Barr has been doing a lot of anti-Patriot Act activism lately. There's a lot of libertarian-leaning Repubs who are as against the act as any freedom-loving Dem. But I agree wholeheartedly with your point. We shouldn't have to settle for "just a little bit better" than the Shrub.

I am a Democrat who believes very deeply in supporting the party. What some people don't seem to realize is that I (and many others) firmly believe that this ABB theory is not truly supporting the party. It is simply being anti-Shrub (an maybe pro-DLC?). There are worse things than Shrub, as evidenced by what is happening in Texas right now. Simply getting rid of him is not enough.

If our candidate is simply a nicer/kinder/smarter face of the status quo, then we will accomplish nothing!

Besides, as I have repeatedly reminded people on this site, MY VOTE DOES NOT COUNT IN NOV ANYWAY. I live in Texas, people.

or not you recognize them. I do, therefore I shall vote BUSH OUT in 2004. It's not about voting for a Republican to replace Bush. It's about voting for someone who has to adhere to the basic principals of the Democratic party.

Let me remind you all of one very chilling fact. There are SIX supreme court justices who will likely retire in the next 4 years. Who do you want appointing them?

Hey last liberal: Molly Ivins says "vote your heart in the primary, and your head in the general election." I tend to agree with her

and it wouldn't matter one whit. I LIVE IN TEXAS! My vote won't count anyway, except in some irrelevant bragging contest over who won the irrelevant popular vote.

You are right that this is about the difference between the 2 parties. I want there to continue to be a difference, and that is why I won't give a loyalty oath to a kinder face of the PNAC/military industrial complex agenda. I don't want my party to disintegrate even further into an "opposition" party that can't even elect officials or show a spine.

sure only the Electoral votes "count" but I for one beleive that the only legitmate leadership comes from a democratic vote. Bush is not legitmate not only because of the stealing of the elction, but alos because he got half a million votes fewer than "the other guy". The Electoral College is just plain wrong, it throws my vote away too.

exists where we won't even get to vote for which of the nine we want, is that correct? No vote in choosing the Dem. Nominee and our vote won't count in Nov. What's the point in voting at all in '04 in this state?

It seems to me that the Greens require some sort of ideological purity. What exactly are these positions that the Green Party represents? In what State or localities are these Greens working for these positions. Are there any voting records for the Green Party officials?

When you can provide me with some sort of clear platform, that I can accept or reject based on the issues, and then provide me with some sort of real apparatus for governing an actual government, I would consider thinking about anything other than a Democrat. I want to vote for people who will actually be RUNNING our government. And yes, if I have to I will accept a marginal good over a terrible evil.

You're a longtime Green person. You're here talking about accepting something bad, as if there is a real alternative to your presumed bias against the Dems.

What is that real alternative? I asked some pretty clear points. I asked you to compare the Green Party platform vs. the Dem platform. Explain why the Green Party is better. Then explain what elected Greens have done to improve their localities.

I respect your right to support any of our candidates and I don't speak ill of any of them (except occasionally Lieberman). I've followed the Democratic party since 1970 and I don't feel I've ever supported a candidate who was less than the best. Better than Bush isn't a question I ask. They're obviously all better than Bush. I look for a superior candidate who people can relate to. I've found mine and I'm sure you'll settle on yours. You have a lot of good choices so it won't be easy.

Even the most moderate Democrat in the field would be a HUGE improvement over Bush.

Don't believe me? Well, here's a short list of differences:

-- judicial nominees that are actually willing to respect what's left of the Warren and Burger court precedents-- an attorney general that actually believes in civil rights-- an EPA director that actually believes in protecting the environment-- a Secretary of Labor that actually believes in unions-- a budget director that actually believes in balancing the budget-- a Secretary of Education that actually believes in public schools.

In addition, the bargaining position of Democrats in the Congress would be vastley improved because a Democratic president could be counted on to veto any right-wing legislation.

who has talked about supporting vouchers. But the teachers unions, who send 1 in 4 our the delegates to the convention, would not permit a secretary of education who believed in vouchers to be nominated by a Democratic President. Also that one candidate, has said time and time again that he only supports vouchers usning funds which wouldn't otherwise go to education .

I still can't say that a candidate who supports even limited vouchers would necessarily nominate a Secretary of Education who believes in public schools, and even you are missing my point. The point is the mindset, not the candidate.

... the nomination is made, and your best choice isn't nominated. My objecction is to those who would rather contribute to a Bush victory than support a Democratic nominee that they didn't support in the primaries. I think that's pretty sad.

As a side note: if I *did* want to spend all day on DU pushing/advocating for the Greens, I could do worse than bringing up valid concerns I have with the Democrats and letting y'all do my "dirty work". You're the ones who want to talk about Nader and the GP, not me.

a philosophy. I don't like it because it harkens up images of my mom spouting homespun wisdom in the body of the phrase "out of the frying pan, into the fire." Unfortunately, I have the same general response to Anyone But Bush.

I haven't decided who I'll support for the presidency yet, but I'm certain that whoever I choose to support, it'll be a well researched, well thought out, well reasoned choice which I believe will help to bring about the downfall of the crudheads currently in office.

For me, the "better than Bush*" line comes into play after the nomination process. Until then I will support the democratic candidate I most prefer.

You do have a point in that you have to dig pretty deep to find someone that would be worse than Bush*. So this test alone is not much of a hurdle to cross.

That being aside, voting for a third party candidate is the quickest way to assure that no part of your political agenda ever becomes policy.

I know of no way that any of the Green Party's 10 key values were advanced by the votes cast for Mr. Nader in 2000. Nor were any of Ross Perot's policy agendas furthered by the votes for him in 1992. Niether were John Anderson's nor George Wallace's, nor Pat Buchanan's agendas furthered by their respective campaigns (and on and on...).

For me, the "better than Bush*" line comes into play after the nomination process. Until then I will support the democratic candidate I most prefer.

You do have a point in that you have to dig pretty deep to find someone that would be worse than Bush*. So this test alone is not much of a hurdle to cross.

That being aside, voting for a third party candidate is the quickest way to assure that no part of your political agenda ever becomes policy.

I know of no way that any of the Green Party's 10 key values were advanced by the votes cast for Mr. Nader in 2000. Nor were any of Ross Perot's policy agendas furthered by the votes for him in 1992. Niether were John Anderson's nor George Wallace's, nor Pat Buchanan's agendas furthered by their respective campaigns (and on and on...).

For me, the "better than Bush*" line comes into play after the nomination process. Until then I will support the democratic candidate I most prefer.

You do have a point in that you have to dig pretty deep to find someone that would be worse than Bush*. So this test alone is not much of a hurdle to cross.

That being aside, voting for a third party candidate is the quickest way to assure that no part of your political agenda ever becomes policy.

I know of no way that any of the Green Party's 10 key values were advanced by the votes cast for Mr. Nader in 2000. Nor were any of Ross Perot's policy agendas furthered by the votes for him in 1992. Niether were John Anderson's nor George Wallace's, nor Pat Buchanan's agendas furthered by their respective campaigns (and on and on...).

For me, the "better than Bush*" line comes into play after the nomination process. Until then I will support the democratic candidate I most prefer.

You do have a point in that you have to dig pretty deep to find someone that would be worse than Bush*. So this test alone is not much of a hurdle to cross.

That being aside, voting for a third party candidate is the quickest way to assure that no part of your political agenda ever becomes policy.

I know of no way that any of the Green Party's 10 key values were advanced by the votes cast for Mr. Nader in 2000. Nor were any of Ross Perot's policy agendas furthered by the votes for him in 1992. Niether were John Anderson's nor George Wallace's, nor Pat Buchanan's agendas furthered by their respective campaigns (and on and on...).

For me, the "better than Bush*" line comes into play after the nomination process. Until then I will support the democratic candidate I most prefer.

You do have a point in that you have to dig pretty deep to find someone that would be worse than Bush*. So this test alone is not much of a hurdle to cross.

That being aside, voting for a third party candidate is the quickest way to assure that no part of your political agenda ever becomes policy.

I know of no way that any of the Green Party's 10 key values were advanced by the votes cast for Mr. Nader in 2000. Nor were any of Ross Perot's policy agendas furthered by the votes for him in 1992. Niether were John Anderson's nor George Wallace's, nor Pat Buchanan's agendas furthered by their respective campaigns (and on and on...).

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.